Bail restrictions not an easy argument, some say

It seems like an easy argument: Tighten some bail restrictions, while providing release options for those who might not have the money to post bond.

But nothing in Trenton is simple and the effort to make changes in the state’s bail system has raised concerns among a number of advocates. In one case, the plan has made for strange bedfellows.

Groups as disparate as the American Bail Coalition, an organization for bail companies, and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the venerable civil rights organization, have teamed up in a quest to reform the reform.

The bill would amend the state constitution, but as written, it “is not inclusive of the community, in terms of the people they say they are trying to protect,” said Charles Steele Jr., the CEO and president emeritus of the SCLC.

The SCLC’s argument is that the bill, while well intentioned, ignores the situation in which many poor accused offenders find themselves. For example, the bill promotes alternatives to bail, such as mandatory substance-abuse treatment, but it ignores the financial implications of such sessions, the overall costs of which could become burdensome and nearly impossible for people to meet.

Because of that, a higher number of poor people accused of crimes will find themselves in violation of bail terms and back in jail. That has the potential of taking a low-level offender and turning him or her into a “super criminal,” Steele said.

“You have somebody who creates a low-level crime. That low-level crime leads to a person who is poor being placed in the system. Well, now you’ve incarcerated somebody next to a detained individual who might be in there for a more substantive issue, and you have this training process,” said Charles Brooks, the counsel for the SCLC.

By modifying the bill to include more options, such as flex-time classes and sessions, society can accomplish its goals of safeguarding the community from violent criminals while keeping the underprivileged employed and productive, Brooks believes.

The importance of the bail bond agencies cannot be understated, Brooks said. They are often the poor person’s first recourse when it comes to getting out of jail for a minor offense.

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: They are, a lot of times for the poor, their first lawyer, in terms of how to get them out of the system,” Brooks said of bail bondsmen.

But what about those repeat violent offenders? Shouldn’t it be difficult for people with a history of violent crime to get out on bail?

Nicholas J. Wachinski, executive director of the bail coalition, doesn’t disagree. Wachinski said his industry supports some of the conclusions drawn in a recent New Jersey State Commission of Investigation report that drew attention to glaring deficiencies in the application of bail law. But, said Wachinski, the options being discussed in the current bill can already be used at the discretion of a judge.

“Taking a judge out of a fact-by-fact assessment” of each case concerns Brooks, and the result can be broken lives and broken homes.

“If you’re busting up homes — because that’s what you’re doing when you’re taking somebody and you incarcerate them — now you’ve created these other issues, these other ripples in the water that are going to affect the children,” Brooks said.

Brooks and Wachinski stress they are not talking about relaxing standards for repeat violent offenders. Rather, they are most concerned about the underprivileged who may have trouble getting out of jail and complying with the conditions set in the bill.

Sen. Ron Rice, the chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus, also has concerns about the bill and is urging a cautious and deliberate approach to the legislation. Coming up with a successful reform effort, he said, cannot and should not be done in a hurry.

The measure, which has been amended, is awaiting another committee hearing in the Assembly and is up for a vote before the full Senate.